This document is intended to give
an overview of the main conclusions reached from recent developments
in light-speed research. In order to do this effectively, it has
been necessary to include background information which, for a
few, will already be well-known. However, for the sake of the
majority who are not conversant with these areas of physics, it
was felt important to include this information. While this overview
is comprehensive, the actual derivation of many conclusions is
beyond its scope. These derivations have, nevertheless, been fully
performed in a major scientific paper using standard maths and
physics coupled with observational data. Full justification of
the conclusions mentioned here can be found in that thesis. Currently,
that paper in which the new model is presented, is being finalised
for peer review and will be made available once this whole process
is complete.

THE VACUUM

During the 20th century,
our knowledge regarding space and the properties of the vacuum
has taken a considerable leap forward. The vacuum is more unusual
than many people realise. It is popularly considered to be a void,
an emptiness, or just 'nothingness.' This is the definition of
a bare vacuum [1]. However, as science has learned
more about the properties of space, a new and contrasting description
has arisen, which physicists call the physical vacuum[1].

To understand the difference between
these two definitions, imagine you have a perfectly sealed container.
First remove all solids and liquids from it, and then pump out
all gases so no atoms or molecules remain. There is now a vacuum
in the container. It was this concept in the 17th century
that gave rise to the definition of a vacuum as
a totally empty volume of space. It was later discovered that,
although this vacuum would not transmit sound, it would transmit
light and all other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Starting from the high energy side, these wavelengths range from
very short wavelength gamma rays, X-rays, and ultra-violet light,
through the rainbow spectrum of visible light, to low energy longer
wavelengths including infra-red light, microwaves and radio waves.

THE ENERGY IN THE VACUUM

Then, late in the 19th
century, it was realised that the vacuum could still contain heat
or thermal radiation. If our container with the vacuum is now
perfectly insulated so no heat can get in or out, and if it is
then cooled to absolute zero, all thermal radiation will have
been removed. Does a complete vacuum now exist within the container?
Surprisingly, this is not the case. Both theory and experiment
show that this vacuum still contains measurable energy. This energy
is called the zero-point energy (ZPE) because it
exists even at absolute zero.

The ZPE was discovered to be a
universal phenomenon, uniform and all-pervasive on a large scale.
Therefore, its existence was not suspected until the early 20th
century. In 1911, while working with a series of equations describing
the behaviour of radiant energy from a hot body, Max Planck found
that the observations required a term in his equations that did
not depend on temperature. Other physicists, including Einstein,
found similar terms appearing in their own equations. The implication
was that, even at absolute zero, each body will have some residual
energy. Experimental evidence soon built up hinting at the existence
of the ZPE, although its fluctuations do not become significant
enough to be observed until the atomic level is attained. For
example [2], the ZPE can explain why cooling alone will never
freeze liquid helium. Unless pressure is applied, these ZPE fluctuations
prevent helium's atoms from getting close enough to permit solidification.
In electronic circuits another problem surfaces because ZPE fluctuations
cause a random "noise" that places limits on the level
to which signals can be amplified.

The magnitude of the ZPE is truly
large. It is usually quoted in terms of energy per unit of volume
which is referred to as energy density. Well-known
physicist Richard Feynman and others [3] have pointed out that
the amount of ZPE in one cubic centimetre of the vacuum "is
greater than the energy density in an atomic nucleus"
[4]. Indeed, it has been stated that [5]: "Formally, physicists
attribute an infinite amount of energy to this background. But,
even when they impose appropriate cutoffs at high frequency, they
estimate conservatively that the zero-point density is comparable
to the energy density inside an atomic nucleus." In an
atomic nucleus alone, the energy density is of the order of 1044 ergs
per cubic centimetre. (An erg is defined as "the
energy expended or work done when a mass of 1 gram undergoes an
acceleration of 1 centimetre per second per second over a distance
of 1 centimetre.")

Estimates of the energy density
of the ZPE therefore range from at least 1044
ergs per cubic centimetre up to infinity. For example, Jon Noring
made the statement that "Quantum Mechanics predicts the
energy density [of the ZPE] is on the order of an incomprehensible
1098 ergs per cubic centimetre." Prigogine and Stengers also analysed
the situation and provided estimates of the size of the ZPE ranging
from 10100 ergs per cubic centimetre up to infinity.
In case this is dismissed as fanciful, Stephen M. Barnett from
the University of Oxford, writing in Nature (March
22, 1990, p.289), stated: "The mysterious nature of the
vacuum [is] revealed by quantum electrodynamics. It is not an
empty nothing, but contains randomly fluctuating electromagnetic
fields with an infinite zero-point energy." In
actual practice, recent work suggests there may be an upper limit
for the estimation of the ZPE at about 10114
ergs per cubic centimetre (this upper limit is imposed by the
Planck length, as discussed below).

In order to appreciate the magnitude
of the ZPE in each cubic centimetre of space, consider a conservative
estimate of 1052 ergs/cc. Most people are familiar with
the light bulbs with which we illuminate our houses. The one in
my office is labelled as 150 watts. (A watt is defined
as 107 ergs per second.) By comparison, our
sun radiates energy at the rate of 3.8 x 1020
watts. In our galaxy there are in excess of 100 billion stars.
If we assume they all radiate at about the same intensity as our
sun, then the amount of energy expended by our entire galaxy of
stars shining for one million years is roughly equivalent to the
energy locked up in one cubic centimetre of space.

THE "GRANULAR STRUCTURE"
OF SPACE

In addition to the ZPE, there
is another aspect of the physical vacuum that needs to be presented.
When dealing with the vacuum, size considerations are all-important.
On a large scale the physical vacuum has properties that are uniform
throughout the cosmos, and seemingly smooth and featureless. However,
on an atomic scale, the vacuum has been described as a "seething
sea of activity" [2], or "the seething vacuum"
[5]. It is in this realm of the very small that our understanding
of the vacuum has increased. The size of the atom is about 10-8
centimetres. The size of an atomic particle, such as an electron,
is about 10-13 centimetres. As the scale becomes smaller,
there is a major change at the Planck length (1.616
x 10-33 centimetres), which we will designate
as L* [6]. In 1983, F. M. Pipkin and R. C. Ritter pointed out
in Science (vol. 219, p.4587), that "the
Planck length is a length at which the smoothness of space breaks
down, and space assumes a granular structure."

This "granular structure"
of space, to use Pipkin and Ritter's phrase, is considered
to be made up of Planck particles whose diameter is equal to L*,
and whose mass is equal to a fundamental unit called the Planck
mass, M*, (2.177 x 10-5 grams). These Planck particles form the
basis for various cosmological theories such as strings, super
strings, 10-dimensional space, and so on. During the last hundred
years, physicists have discovered that atomic particles such as
electrons or protons, have a wave-form associated with them. This
is termed the wave/particle duality of matter. These
waves are called deBroglie waves and vary inversely
with mass [7]. That is to say, the heavier the particle, the shorter
its wavelength. This means that because a proton is more massive,
its wavelength is shorter than an electron's. What is interesting
is that Planck particles have a diameter L* that is equal to their
deBroglie wavelength.

The physical vacuum of space therefore
appears to be made up of an all-pervasive sea of Planck particles
whose density is an unbelievable 3.6 x 1093
grams per cubic centimetre. It might be wondered how anything
can move through such a medium. It is because deBroglie wavelengths
of elementary particles are so long compared with the Planck length,
L*, that the vacuum is 'transparent' to these elementary particles.
It is for the same reason that long wavelength infra-red light
can travel through a dense cloud in space and reveal what is within
instead of being absorbed, and why light can pass through dense
glass. Therefore, motion of elementary particles through the vacuum
will be effortless, as long as these particles do not have energies
of the magnitude of what is referred to as Planck energy,
or M*c2 ('c' is the velocity of light). Atomic particles
of that energy would simply be absorbed by the structure of the
vacuum. From the figures for the density given above, the energy
associated with this Planck particle sea making up the physical
vacuum can be calculated to be of the order of 10114
ergs per cubic centimetre, the same as the maximum value for the
ZPE.

TWO THEORIES DESCRIBING THE VACUUM

Currently, there are two theories
that describe the behaviour and characteristics of the physical
vacuum and the ZPE at the atomic or sub-atomic level: the quantum
electro-dynamic (QED) model [8], and the somewhat more
recent stochastic electro-dynamic (SED) model [9,10].
They both give the same answers mathematically, so the choice
between them is one of aesthetics. In some cases the QED model
gives results that are easier to visualise; in other cases the
SED model is better. Importantly, both come to the same conclusion
that even at absolute zero the physical vacuum has an inherent
energy density. The origin of this energy is discussed later.
For now, the focus of attention is on the observable effects of
this energy. The QED model maintains that the zero-point energy
reveals its existence through the effects of sub-atomic virtual
particles. By contrast, the SED approach affirms that the ZPE
exists as electromagnetic fields or waves whose effects explain
the observed phenomena equally well. Let us look at both in a
little more detail.

THE QED MODEL OF THE VACUUM

At the atomic level, the QED model
proposes that, because of the high inherent energy density within
the vacuum, some of this energy can be temporarily converted to
mass. This is possible since energy and mass can be converted
from one to the other according to Einstein's famous equation
[E = mc2], where 'E' is energy, 'm' is mass, and
'c' is the speed of light. On this basis, the QED model proposes
that the ZPE permits short-lived particle/antiparticle pairs (such
as a positive and negative pion, or perhaps an electron and positron)
to form and almost immediately annihilate each other [2,11]. These
particle/antiparticle pairs are called virtual particles.
Virtual particles are distinct from Planck particles which
make up the structure of the vacuum. While virtual particles are,
perhaps, about 10-13 centimetres diameter, Planck particles
are dramatically smaller at about 10-33
cm. Virtual particles wink in and out of existence incredibly
quickly. The exact relationship between the energy of these particles
and the brief time of their existence is explained in quantum
theory by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
states that the uncertainty of time multiplied by the uncertainty
of the energy is closely approximated to Planck's constant
'h' divided by 2p. This quantum uncertainty, or indeterminacy,
governed by the value of 'h', imposes fundamental limitations
on the precision with which a number of physical quantities associated
with atomic processes can be measured. In the case under consideration
here, the uncertainty principle permits these virtual particle
events to occur as long as they are completed within an extraordinarily
brief period of time, which is of the order of 10-23
seconds [5]. According to this QED model, an atomic particle such
as a proton or electron, even when entirely alone in a vacuum
at absolute zero, is continually emitting and absorbing these
virtual particles from the vacuum [12].

Consequently, a proton or electron
is considered to be the centre of constant activity; it is surrounded
by a cloud of virtual particles with which it is interacting [12].
In the case of the electron, physicists have been able to penetrate
a considerable way into this virtual particle cloud. They have
found that the further into the cloud they go, the smaller, more
compact and point-like the electron becomes. At the same time
they have discovered there is a more pronounced negative charge
associated with the electron the further they penetrated into
this cloud [13]. These virtual particles act in such a way as
to screen the full electronic charge. There is a further important
effect verified by observation and experiment: the absorption
and emission of these virtual particles also causes the electron's
"jitter motion" in a vacuum at absolute zero. As such,
this jittering, or Zitterbewegung, as it is officially
called [14], constitutes evidence for the existence of virtual
particles and the ZPE of the vacuum.

THE SED MODEL OF THE VACUUM

In the SED approach, the vacuum
at the atomic or sub-atomic level may be considered to be inherently
comprised of a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electro-magnetic
fields or waves. These waves exist at all wavelengths longer than
the Planck length L*. At the macroscopic level, these all-pervasive
zero-point fields (ZPF) are homogeneous and isotropic,
which means they have the same properties uniformly in every direction
throughout the whole cosmos. Furthermore, observation shows that
this zero-point radiation (ZPR) must be "Lorentz
invariant" [1]. This means that it must look the
same to two observers no matter what the velocity of these observers
is with respect to each other. Note that this Lorentz invariance
makes the ZPF crucially different from any of the 19th
century concepts of an ether [15]. The old ether concept indicated
absolute velocity through the ether could be determined. However,
the Lorentz invariant condition indicates that the zero-point
radiation will look the same to all observers regardless of their
relative velocities.

Importantly, with the SED approach,
Planck's quantum constant, 'h', becomes a measure
of the strength of the ZPF. This situation arises because the
fluctuations of the ZPF provide an irreducible random noise at
the atomic level that is interpreted as the innate uncertainty
described by Heisenberg's uncertainly principle [4,16]. Therefore,
the zero-point fields are the ultimate source of this fundamental
limitation with which we can measure some atomic phenomena and,
as such, give rise to the indeterminacy or uncertainty of quantum
theory mentioned above. In fact, Nelson pointed out in 1966 that
if the ZPR had been discovered at the beginning of the 20th
century, then classical mechanics plus the ZPR could have formulated
nearly all the results developed by quantum mechanics [17, 4].

In the SED explanation, the Zitterbewegung
is accounted for by the random fluctuations of the ZPF, or waves,
as they impact upon the electron and jiggle it around. There is
also evidence for the existence of the zero-point energy in this
model by something called the surface Casimir effect,
predicted Hendrik Casimir, the Dutch scientist, in 1948 and confirmed
nine years later by M. J. Sparnaay of the Philips Laboratory in
Eindhoven, Holland [1]. The Casimir effect can be demonstrated
by bringing two large metal plates very close together in a vacuum.
When they are close, but not touching, there is a small but measurable
force that pushes them together. The SED theory explains this
simply. As the metal plates get closer, they end up excluding
all wavelengths of the ZPF between the plates except the very
short ones that are a sub-multiple of the plates' distance apart.
In other words, all the long wavelengths of the ZPF are now acting
on the plates from the outside. The combined radiation pressure
of these external waves then forces the plates together [5,16].
The same effect can be seen on the ocean. Sailors have noted that
if the distance between two boats is less than the distance between
two wave crests (or one wavelength), the boats are forced towards
each other.

The Casimir effect is directly
proportional to the area of the plates. However, unlike other
possible forces with which it may be confused, the Casimir force
is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the plates' distance
apart [18]. For plates with an area of one square centimetre separated
by 0.5 thousandths of a millimetre, this force is equivalent to
a weight of 0.2 milligrams. In January of 1997, Steven Lamoreaux
reported verification of these details by an experiment reported
in Physical Review Letters (vol.78, p5).

The surface Casimir effect therefore
demonstrates the existence of the ZPE in the form of electromagnetic
waves. Interestingly, Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff and others point
out that there is a microscopic version of the same phenomenon.
In the case of closely spaced atoms or molecules the all-pervasive
ZPF result in short-range attractive forces that are known as
van der Waals forces [4, 16]. It is these attractive
forces that permit real gases to be turned into
liquids [2]. (When an 'ideal' gas is compressed, it behaves in
a precise way. When a real gas is compressed, its behaviour deviates
from the ideal equation [19]).

The common objections to the actual
existence of the zero-point energy centre around the idea that
it is simply a theoretical construct. However the presence of
both the Casimir effect and the Zitterbewegung, among other observational
evidences, prove the reality of the ZPE.

LIGHT AND THE PROPERTIES OF SPACE

This intrinsic energy, the ZPE,
which is inherent in the vacuum, gives free space its various
properties. For example, the magnetic property of free space is
called the permeability while the corresponding
electric property is called the permittivity. Both
of these are affected uniformly by the ZPE [20]. If they were
not, the electric and magnetic fields in travelling light waves
would no longer bear a constant ratio to each other, and light
from distant objects would be noticeably affected [21]. Since
the vacuum permeability and permittivity are also energy-related
quantities, they are directly proportional to the energy per unit
volume (the energy density) of the ZPE [20]. It follows that if
the energy density of the ZPE ever increased, then there would
be a proportional increase in the value of both the permeability
and permittivity.

Because light waves are an electro-magnetic
phenomenon, their motion through space is affected by the electric
and magnetic properties of the vacuum, namely the permittivity
and permeability. To examine this in more detail we closely follow
a statement by Lehrman and Swartz [22]. They pointed out that
light waves consist of changing electric fields that generate
changing magnetic fields. This then regenerates the electric field,
and so on. The wave travels by transferring energy from the electric
field to the magnetic field and back again. The magnetic field
resulting from the change in the electric field must be such as
to oppose the change in the electric field, according to Lenz's
Law. This means that the magnetic property of space has
a kind of inertial property inhibiting the rapid change of the
fields. The magnitude of this property is the magnetic constant
of free space 'U' which is usually called the magnetic permeability
of the vacuum.

The electric constant, or permittivity,
of free space is also important, and is related to electric charges.
A charge represents a kind of electrical distortion of space,
which produces a force on neighbouring charges. The constant of
proportionality between the interacting charges is 1/Q, which
describes a kind of electric elastic property of space. The quantity
Q is usually called the electric permittivity of
the vacuum. It is established physics that the velocity of a wave
motion squared is proportional to the ratio of the elasticity
over the inertia of the medium in which it is travelling. In the
case of the vacuum and the speed of light, c, this standard equation
becomes

c2 = 1 / (UQ)

As noted above, both U and Q are
directly proportional to the energy density of the ZPE. It therefore
follows that any increase in the energy density of the ZPF will
not only result in a proportional increase in U and Q, but will
also cause a decrease in the speed of light, c.

WHY ATOMS DON'T SELF-DESTRUCT

But it is not only light that
is affected by these properties of the vacuum. It has also been
shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are dependent
upon the ZPE for their very existence. This was clearly demonstrated
by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin,
Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later
in New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started
by pointing out an anomaly. According to classical concepts, an
electron in orbit around a proton should be radiating energy.
As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should spiral into the
atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in a
flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist
why it does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's
quantum condition. This quantum condition states that
electrons in specific orbits around the nucleus do not
radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or alternatively, if you
ask why the classical laws of electro-magnetics are violated in
this way, the reply is generally vague and less than satisfactory
[4].

Instead of ignoring the known
laws of physics, Puthoff approached this problem with the assumption
that the classical laws of electro-magnetics were valid, and that
the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds in its orbit
around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
electro-magnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the
electron lost as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the
power that the electron gained from the ZPF. The two turned out
to be identical; the loss was exactly made up for by the gain.
It was like a child on a swing: just as the swing started to slow,
it was given another push to keep it going. Puthoff then concluded
that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum, every atom in
the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse [4, 23]. In
other words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout
the entire cosmos.

THE RAINBOW SPECTRUM

Knowing that light itself is affected
by the zero-point energy, phenomena associated with light need
to be examined. When light from the sun is passed through a prism,
it is split up into a spectrum of seven colours. Falling rain
acts the same way, and the resulting spectrum is called a rainbow.
Just like the sun and other stars making up our own galaxy, distant
galaxies each have a rainbow spectrum. From 1912 to 1922, Vesto
Slipher at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona recorded accurate
spectrographic measurements of light from 42 galaxies [24, 25].
When an electron drops from an outer atomic orbit to an inner
orbit, it gives up its excess energy as a flash of light of a
very specific wavelength. This causes a bright emission line in
the colour spectrum.

However when an electron jumps
to a higher orbit, energy is absorbed and instead of a bright
emission line, the reverse happens -- a dark absorption line appears
in the spectrum. Each element has a very specific set of spectral
lines associated with it. Within the spectra of the sun, stars
or distant galaxies these same spectral lines appear.

THE REDSHIFT OF LIGHT FROM GALAXIES

Slipher noted that in distant
galaxies this familiar pattern of lines was shifted systematically
towards the red end of the spectrum. He concluded that this redshift
of light from these galaxies was a Doppler effect
caused by these galaxies moving away from us. The Doppler effect
can be explained by what happens to the pitch of a siren on a
police car as it moves away from you. The tone drops. Slipher
concluded that the redshift of the spectral lines to longer wavelengths
was similarly due to the galaxies receding from us. For that reason,
this redshift is usually expressed as a velocity, even though
as late as 1960 some astronomers were seeking other explanations
[25]. In 1929, Edwin Hubble plotted the most recent distance measurements
of these galaxies on one axis, with their redshift recession velocity
on the other. He noted that the further away the galaxies were,
the higher were their redshifts [24].

It was concluded that if the redshift
represented receding galaxies, and the redshift increased in direct
proportion to the galaxies distances from us, then the entire
universe must be expanding [24]. The situation is likened to dots
on the surface of a balloon being inflated. As the balloon expands,
each dot appears to recede from every other dot. A slightly more
complete picture was given by relativity theory. Here space itself
is considered to be expanding, carrying the galaxies with it.
According this interpretation, light from distant objects has
its wavelength stretched or reddened in transit because the space
in which it is travelling is expanding.

THE REDSHIFT GOES IN JUMPS

This interpretation of the redshift
is held by a majority of astronomers. However, in 1976, William
Tifft of the Steward Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, published
the first of a number of papers analyzing redshift measurements.
He observed that the redshift measurements did not change smoothly
as distance increased, but went in jumps: in other words they
were quantised [26]. Between successive jumps, the
redshift remained fixed at the value it attained at the last jump.
This first study was by no means exhaustive, so Tifft investigated
further. As he did so, he discovered that the original observations
that suggested a quantised redshift were strongly supported wherever
he looked [27 - 34]. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift
survey was completed. Because redshift values in this survey were
not clustered in the way Tifft had noted earlier, it looked as
if redshift quantisation could be ruled out. However, in 1984
Tifft and Cocke pointed out that the motion of the sun and its
solar system through space produces a genuine Doppler effect of
its own, which adds or subtracts a little to every redshift measurement.
When this true Doppler effect was subtracted from all the observed
redshifts, it produced strong evidence for the quantisation of
redshifts across the entire sky [35, 36].

The initial quantisation value
that Tifft discovered was a redshift of 72.46 kilometres per second
in the Coma cluster of galaxies. Subsequently it was discovered
that quantisation figures of up to 13 multiples of 72.46 km/s
existed. Later work established a smaller quantisation figure
just half of this, namely 36.2 km/s. This was subsequently supported
by Guthrie and Napier who concluded that 37.6 km/s was a more
basic figure, with an error of 2 km/s [37-39]. After further observations,
Tifft announced in 1991 that these and other redshift quantisations
recorded earlier were simply higher multiples of a basic quantisation
figure [40]. That figure turned out to be 8.05 km/s, which when
multiplied by 9 gave the original 72.46 km/s value. Alternatively,
when 8.05 km/s is multiplied by 9/2 the 36.2 km/s result is obtained.
However, Tifft noted that this 8.05 km/s was not in itself the
most basic result as observations revealed a 8.05/3 km/s, or 2.68
km/s, quantisation, which was even more fundamental [40]. Accepting
this result at face value suggests that the redshift is quantised
in fundamental steps of 2.68 km/s across the cosmos.

RE-EXAMINING THE REDSHIFT

If redshifts were truly a result
of an expanding universe, the measurements would be smoothly distributed,
showing all values within the range measured. This is the sort
of thing we see on a highway, with cars going many different speeds
within the normal range of driving speeds. However the redshift,
being quantised, is more like the idea of those cars each going
in multiples of, say, 5 kilometres an hour. Cars don't do that,
but the redshift does. This would seem to indicate that something
other than the expansion of the universe is responsible for these
results.

We need to undertake a re-examination
of what is actually being observed in order to find a solution
to the problem. It is this solution to the redshift problem that
introduces a new cosmological model. In this model, atomic behaviour
and light-speed throughout the cosmos are linked with the ZPE
and properties of the vacuum.

The prime definition of the redshift,
'z', involves two measured quantities. They comprise the observed
change in wavelength 'D' of a given spectral line when compared
with the laboratory standard 'W'. The ratio of these quantities
[D/W = z] is a dimensionless number that measures the redshift
[41]. However, it is customarily converted to a velocity by multiplying
it by the current speed of light, 'c' [41]. The redshift so defined
is then 'cz', and it is this cz which is changing in steps of
2.68 km/s. Since the laboratory standard wavelength 'W' is unaltered,
it then follows that as [z = D/W] is systematically increasing
in discrete jumps with distance, then D must be increasing in
discrete jumps also. Now D is the difference between the observed
wavelength of a given spectral line and the laboratory standard
[41]. This suggests that emitted wavelengths are becoming longer
in quantum jumps with increasing distance (or with look-back time).
During the time between jumps, the emitted wavelengths remain
unchanged from the value attained at the last jump.

The basic observations therefore
indicate that the wavelengths of all atomic spectral lines have
changed in discrete jumps throughout the cosmos with time. This
could imply that all atomic emitters within each galaxy may be
responsible for the quantised redshift, rather than the recession
of those galaxies or universal expansion. Importantly, the wavelengths
of light emitted from atoms are entirely dependent upon the energy
of each atomic orbit. According to this new way of interpreting
the data, the redshift observations might indicate that the energy
of every atomic orbit in the cosmos simultaneously undergoes a
series of discrete jumps with time. How could this be possible?

ATOMIC ORBITS AND THE REDSHIFT

The explanation may well be found
in the work of Hal Puthoff. Since the ZPE is sustaining every
atom and maintaining the electrons in their orbits, it would then
also be directly responsible for the energy of each atomic orbit.
In view of this, it can be postulated that if the ZPE were lower
in the past, then these orbital energies would probably be less
as well. Therefore emitted wavelengths would be longer, and hence
redder. Because the energy of atomic orbits is quantised or goes
in steps [42], it may well be that any increase in atomic orbital
energy can similarly only go in discrete steps. Between these
steps atomic orbit energies would remain fixed at the value attained
at the last step. In fact, this is the precise effect that Tifft's
redshift data reveals.

The outcome of this is that atomic
orbits would be unable to access energy from the smoothly increasing
ZPF until a complete unit of additional energy became available.
Thus, between quantum jumps all atomic processes proceed on the
basis of energy conservation, operating within the framework of
energy provided at the last quantum jump. Increasing energy from
the ZPE will not affect the atom until a particular threshold
is reached, at which time all the atoms in the universe react
simultaneously.

THE SIZE OF THE ELECTRON

This new approach can be analysed
further. Mathematically it is known that the strength of the electronic
charge is one of several factors governing the orbital energies
within the atom [42]. Therefore, for the orbital energy to change,
a simultaneous change in the value of the charge of both the electron
and the proton would be expected. Although we will only consider
the electron here, the same argument holds for the proton as well.

Theoretically, the size of the spherical electron, and hence
its area, should appear to increase at each quantum jump, becoming
"larger" with time. The so-called Compton radius
of the electron is 3.86151 x 10-11centimetres which, in the
SED approach, is significant. Malcolm H. MacGregor of the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California drew some relevant
conclusions in 'The Enigmatic Electron' (p. 6, and chapter 7,
Kluwer, 1992) that were amplified later by Haisch, Rueda, and
Puthoff [16]. Both groups pointed out that "one defensible
interpretation is that the electron really is a point-like entity,
smeared out to its quantum dimensions by the ZPF fluctuations."
As MacGregor initially emphasised, this "smearing out"
of the electronic charge by the ZPF involves vacuum polarisation
and the Zitterbewegung. When the calculations are
done in SED using these phenomena, the Compton radius for the
electron is indeed obtained [16].

THE ELECTRONIC CHARGE

With this in mind, it might be
anticipated, on the SED approach, that if the energy density of
the ZPF increased, the "point-like entity" of
the electron would be "smeared out" even more,
thus appearing larger. This would follow since the Zitterbewegung
would be more energetic, and vacuum polarization around charges
would be more extensive. In other words, the spherical electrons
apparent radius and hence its area would increase at the quantum
jump. Also important here is the classical radius
of the electron, defined as 2.81785 x 10-13 centimetres.
The formula for this quantity links the electron radius with the
electronic charge and its mass-energy. A larger radius means a
stronger charge, if other factors are equal. Therefore, at the
quantum jump, when a full quantum of additional energy becomes
available to the atom from the ZPE, the electron's radius, and
hence its area, would be expected to expand. This suggestion also
follows from a comment by MacGregor (op. cit. p. 28) about the
spherical electron, namely that "the quantum zero-point
force (tends to) expand the sphere". According to the
formula, a larger classical radius would also indicate that the
intrinsic charge had increased. The importance of this is that
a greater electronic charge will result in a greater orbital energy,
which means that wavelengths emitted by the atom will be shifted
towards the blue end of the spectrum.

The QED model can explain this
formula another way. There is a cloud of virtual particles around
the "bare" electron interacting with it. When a full
quantum increase in the vacuum energy density occurs, the strength
of the charge increases. With a higher charge for the 'point-like
entity' of the electron, it would be expected that the size
of the particle cloud would increase because of stronger vacuum
polarisation and a more energetic Zitterbewegung.
(Note that vacuum polarisation occurs because of
a tendency for virtual particles to be attracted to charges of
the opposite sign, while those of the same sign remain more distant
[18, 43]). This larger cloud of virtual particles intimately associated
with the 'bare' electron would give rise to an increase in the
perceived radius of the 'dressed' electron and its apparent area
since both include the particle cloud. In fact this 'dressed'
electron is the entity that has been observed classically, and
the one to which both the Compton radius and classical
radius formulae apply. This inevitably means that the
virtual particle cloud partially screens the full value of the
'bare' charge. Some experiments have probed deep into the virtual
particle cloud and found the charge does indeed increase with
penetration. In fact, the full value of the 'bare' charge has
yet to be determined [13, 44].

THE BOHR ATOM

Let us now be more specific about
this new approach to orbit energies and their association with
the redshift. The Bohr model of the atom has electrons
going around the atomic nucleus in miniature orbits, like planets
around the sun. Although more sophisticated models of the atom
now exist, it has been acknowledged in the past that the Bohr
theory 'is still often employed as a first approximation'
[45 - 47]. Similarly, much of the recent work done on the ZPE
and atoms in the SED approach has also been at Bohr theory level
[23]. It has been stated that the motive has been to gain 'intuitive
insights and calculational ease' [16]. Accordingly, that approach
is retained here. In the Bohr model of the atom, two equations
describe orbital energy [42]. In 1913, Niels Bohr quantised the
first of these, the angular momentum equation. The angular
momentum of an orbit is described mathematically by mvr',
where m' is the mass of the electron, v' is its velocity
in an orbit whose radius is r'. Bohr pointed out that a
close approximation to observed atomic behaviour is obtained if
electrons are theoretically restricted to those orbits whose angular
momentum is an integral multiple of h/(2p ). Mathematically, that is written as

mvr = nh/(2p )

where n' is a whole number
such as 1, 2, 3, etc., and is called the quantum number.
As mentioned above, 'h' is Planck's quantum constant.
This procedure effectively describes a series of permitted orbits
for electrons in any given atom. In so doing it establishes the
spectral line structure for any specific atom. That much is standard
physics. The new approach maintains the integrity of Bohr's first
equation, so at the instant of any quantum jump in orbital energy,
the angular momentum would be conserved.

BOHR'S SECOND EQUATION

Bohr's second equation describes
the kinetic energy of the electron in an orbit of radius 'r'.
Kinetic energy is defined as mv2/2. The
standard equation for the kinetic energy of the first Bohr orbit,
the orbit closest to the nucleus (often called the ground
state orbit), reads

mv2 /2 = e2 /(8p
Qr)

where 'e' is the charge on the
electron, and 'Q' is the permittivity of the vacuum. This kinetic
energy is equal in magnitude to the total energy of that closest
orbit. When an electron falls from immediately outside the atom
into that orbit, this energy is released as a photon of light.
The energy 'E' of this photon has a wavelength 'W' and both the
energy and the wavelength are linked by the standard equation

E = hc/W

As shown later, observational evidence reveals the 'hc' component
in this equation is an absolute constant at all times. The kinetic
energy and the photon energy are thus equal. This much is standard
physics [42]. Accordingly, we can write the following equality
for the ground state orbit from Bohr's second equation:

E = mv2 /2 = e2 /(8p
Qr) = hc/W

However, as A. P. French points
out in his derivation of the relevant equations [42], the energy
'E' of the ground state orbit, can also be written as

E = hcR

where 'R' is the Rydberg constant and is equal
to 109737.3 cm-1. The Rydberg
constant links emitted wavelengths with atomic orbit energy [42].
This link was discovered by Johannes Robert Rydberg of Sweden
in 1890. In fact, over a century later, this model indicates that
he discovered more than he is being credited with. By comparing
the last two equations above, it will be noted that the wavelength
'W' associated with the energy 'E' of the ground state orbit is
given by

W = 1/R = K

where 'K' is the Rydberg wavelength such that

1/R = K = 9.11267 x 10-6centimetres

A NEW QUANTUM CONDITION

If we now follow the lead of Bohr,
and quantise his second equation, a solution to several difficulties
is found. Observationally, the incremental increase of redshift
with distance indicates that the wavelengths of light emitted
from galaxies undergo a fractional increase. Therefore, for the
ground state orbit of the Bohr atom, the wavelength 'K' must increment
in steps of some set fraction of 'K', say K/R = R*. This
means that K = RR*. Furthermore, the wavelength increment
D can be defined as

D = nK/R = nR*

Here, the term 'n' is the
new quantum integer which fulfils the same function
as Bohr's quantum number 'n'. Furthermore, Planck's quantum constant
'h' finds its parallel in 'R*'. As a consequence, 'R*' could be
called the Rydberg quantum wavelength since it is
a specific fraction of the Rydberg wavelength. This designated
fraction is given by the dimensionless number 'R' which
could perhaps be called the Rydberg quantum number.
Analysis of the terms making up the Rydberg constant indicate
that such a dimensionless number can indeed be obtained provided
one reasonable assumption is made. The details are given in the
main paper. This Rydberg quantum number 'R' then bears
the value

R
= (1182.4)p4= 115176

Under these circumstances, the
Rydberg quantum wavelength 'R*' is defined as

R* = 1/(RR) = K/R
= 7.91197 ´ 10-11centimetres

It therefore follows that wavelengths
increment in steps of

D = nR* = n (7.91197
x 10-11 ) centimetres.

This new quantisation procedure
means that the energy (E) of the first Bohr orbit will increment in
steps of DE such that

DE = hc / D = hc / nR*) =

This holds because of two factors.
First, if 'n' decreases with time, it will mimic the behaviour
of the redshift which also decreases with time. High redshift
values from distant objects necessarily mean high values for 'n'
as well. Second, all atomic orbit radii 'r' can be shown to remain
unchanged throughout any quantum changes. If they were not, the
abrupt change of size of every atom at the quantum jump would
cause obvious flaws in crystals, which would be especially noticeable
in ancient rocks. This new quantisation procedure effectively
allows every atom in the cosmos to simultaneously acquire a new
higher energy state for each of its orbits in proportion as the
ZPE increases with time. In so doing, it opens the way for a solution
to the redshift problem.

A QUANTUM REDSHIFT

In the Bohr atom, all orbit energies
are scaled according to the energy of the orbit closest to the
nucleus, the ground state orbit. Therefore, if the ground state
orbit has an energy change, all other orbits will scale their
energy proportionally. This also means that wavelengths of emitted
light will be scaled in proportion to the energy of the ground
state orbit of the atom. Accordingly, if W0 is any arbitrary
emitted wavelength and W1 is the wavelength of the ground state
orbit, then the wavelength change at the quantum jump is given
by

D = nR*W0 /W1

Now the redshift is defined as
the change in wavelength, given by 'D', divided by the reference
wavelength 'W'. For the purposes of illustration, let us take
the reference wavelength to be equal to that emitted when an electron
falls into the ground state orbit for hydrogen. This wavelength
is close to 9.12 x 10-6 centimetres. For this orbit, the value
of 'D' from the above equation is given by 7.91197 ´ 10-11
centimetres since (n = 1) in this case. Therefore, the
redshift

z = D/W = 8.6754 x 10-6

and so the velocity change

cz = 2.600 km/sec

This compares favourably with
Tifft's basic value of 2.68 km/sec for the quantum jumps in the
redshift velocity. Furthermore, when the new quantum number takes
the value (n = 28), the redshift velocity becomes cz =
72.8 km/sec compared with the 72.46 km/s that Tifft originally
noticed. It may also be significant that for (n = 14),
the redshift velocity is 36.4 km/s compared with the 36.2 km/s
that was subsequently established by Tifft.

Imposing a quantum condition on
the second Bohr equation for the atom therefore produces quantum
changes in orbit energies and emitted wavelengths that accord
with the observational evidence. This result also implies the
quantised redshift may not be an indicator of universal expansion.
Rather, this new model suggests it may be evidence that the ZPE
has increased with time allowing atomic orbits to take up successively
higher energy states.

AN INCREASING VACUUM ENERGY?

The key question then becomes,
why should the ZPE increase with time? One basic tenet of the
Big Bang and some other cosmologies is an initial rapid expansion
of the universe. That initial rapid expansion is accepted here.
However, the redshift can no longer be used as evidence that this
initial expansion has continued until the present. Indeed, if
space were continuing its uniform expansion, the precise quantisation
of spectral line shifts that Tifft has noted would be smeared
out and lost. The same argument applies to cosmological contraction.
This suggests that the initial expansion halted before redshifted
spectral lines were emitted by the most distant galaxies, and
that since then the universe has been static. In 1993, Jayant
Narliker and Halton Arp published a paper in Astrophysical
Journal (vol. 405, p. 51) which revealed that a static
cosmos which contained matter was indeed stable against collapse.

However, the initial expansion
was very important. As Paul S. Wesson [48], Martin Harwit [49]
and others have shown, the physical vacuum initially acquired
a potential energy in the form of an elasticity, tension, or stress
as a result of the inflationary expansion of the cosmos. This
might be considered to be akin to the tension, stress, or elasticity
in the fabric of a balloon that has been inflated. Over time,
this tensional energy changes its form. In exactly the same way
that energy is liberated when liquid water changes to ice, so
also the tensional energy of the vacuum is liberated in the form
of radiation [50]. As Harwit points out, the energy residing in
the elasticity of the vacuum (a form of potential energy) becomes
converted into radiation (a form of kinetic energy) [49]. In the
new model under consideration here, it is maintained that this
potential energy becomes converted specifically into the zero-point
radiation (ZPR) as the initial tension of the inflated cosmos
'relaxes' over time.

What is being proposed on this
new model is that the ZPR content of the vacuum was low initially,
but has built up with time as the potential energy of the elastic
tension changed its form into the ZPE of the vacuum electro-magnetic
fields. The redshift data indicate that this conversion of the
vacuum elasticity into the ZPE essentially followed an exponential
decay.

RECONSIDERING LIGHT-SPEED

It is at this point in the discussion
that a consideration of light-speed becomes important. It has
already been mentioned that an increase in vacuum energy density
will result in an increase in the electrical permittivity and
the magnetic permeability of space, since they are energy related.
Since light-speed is inversely linked to both these properties,
if the energy density of the vacuum increases, light-speed will
decrease uniformly throughout the cosmos. Indeed, in 1990 Scharnhorst
[51] and Barton [20] demonstrated that a lessening of the energy
density of a vacuum would produce a higher velocity for light.
This is explicable in terms of the QED approach. The virtual particles
that make up the 'seething vacuum' can absorb a photon
of light and then re-emit it when they annihilate. This process,
while fast, takes a finite time. The lower the energy density
of the vacuum, the fewer virtual particles will be in the path
of light photons in transit. As a consequence, the fewer absorptions
and re-emissions which take place over a given distance, the faster
light travels over that distance [52, 53].

However, the converse is also
true. The higher the energy density of the vacuum, the more virtual
particles will interact with the light photons in a given distance,
and so the slower light will travel. Similarly, when light enters
a transparent medium such as glass, similar absorptions and re-emissions
occur, but this time it is the atoms in the glass which absorb
and re-emit the light photons. This is why light slows as it travels
through a denser medium. Indeed, the more closely packed the atoms,
the slower light will travel as a greater number of interactions
occur in a given distance. In a recent illustration of this light-speed
was reduced to 17 metres/second as it passed through extremely
closely packed sodium atoms near absolute zero [54]. All this
is now known from experimental physics. This agrees with Barnett's
comments in Nature [11] that 'The vacuum is certainly
a most mysterious and elusive object The suggestion that
the value of the speed of light is determined by its structure
is worthy of serious investigation by theoretical physicists.'

On the new model,the redshift measurements imply that light-speed, c,
is dropping exponentially. For each redshift quantum change, the speed of light has
apparently changed by a significant amount. The precise quantity
is dependent upon the value adopted for the Hubble constant
which links a galaxy's redshift with its distance.

AN OBSERVED DECLINE IN LIGHT-SPEED

The question then arises as to
whether or not any other observational evidence exists that the
speed of light has diminished with time. Surprisingly, some 40
articles about this very matter appeared in the scientific literature
from 1926 to 1944 [56]. Some important points emerge from this
literature. In 1944, despite a strong preference for the constancy
of atomic quantities, N. E. Dorsey [57] was reluctantly forced
to admit: 'As is well known to those acquainted with the several
determinations of the velocity of light, the definitive values
successively reported have, in general, decreased monotonously
from Cornu's 300.4 megametres per second in 1874 to Anderson's299.776 in 1940 ' Even Dorsey's own re-working of
the data could not avoid that conclusion.

However, the decline in the measured
value of 'c' was noticed much earlier. In 1886, Simon Newcomb
reluctantly concluded that the older results obtained around 1740
were in agreement with each other, but they indicated 'c' was
about 1% higher than in his own time [58], the early 1880's. In
1941 history repeated itself when Birge made a parallel statement
while writing about the 'c' values obtained by Newcomb, Michelson,
and others around 1880. Birge was forced to concede that '
these older results are entirely consistent among themselves,
but their average is nearly 100 km/s greater than that given by
the eight more recent results' [59]. Each of these three eminent
scientists held to a belief in the absolute constancy of 'c'.
This makes their careful admissions about the experimentally declining
values of measured light speed more significant.

EXAMINING THE DATA

The data obtained over the last
320 years at least imply a decay in 'c' [56]. Over this period,
all 163 measurements of light-speed by 16 methods reveal a non-linear
decay trend. Evidence for this decay trend exists within each
measurement technique as well as overall. Furthermore, an initial
analysis of the behaviour of a number of other atomic constants
was made in 1981 to see how they related to 'c' decay. On the
basis of the measured value of these 'constants', it became apparent
that energy was being conserved throughout the process of 'c'
variation. In all, confirmatory trends appear in 475 measurements
of 11 other atomic quantities by 25 methods. Analysis of the most
accurate atomic data reveals that the trend has a consistent magnitude
in all the other atomic quantities that vary synchronously with
light-speed [56].

All these measurements have been
made during a period when there have been no quantum increases
in the energy of atomic orbits. These observations reinforce the
conclusion that, between any proposed quantum jumps, energy is
conserved in all relevant atomic processes, as no extra energy
is accessible to the atom from the ZPF. Because energy is conserved,
the c-associated atomic constants vary synchronously with c, and
the existing order in the cosmos is not disrupted or intruded
upon. Historically, it was this very behaviour of the various
constants, indicating that energy was being conserved, which was
a key factor in the development of the 1987 Norman-Setterfield
report, The Atomic Constants, Light And Time [56].

The mass of data supporting these
conclusions comprises some 638 values measured by 43 methods.
Montgomery and Dolphin did a further extensive statistical analysis
on the data in 1993 and concluded that the results supported the
'c' decay proposition if energy was conserved [60]. The analysis
was developed further and formally presented in August 1994 by
Montgomery [61]. These papers answered questions related to the
statistics involved and have not yet been refuted.

ATOMIC QUANTITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

Planck's constant and mass are
two of the quantities which vary synchronously with 'c'. Over
the period when 'c' has been measured as declining, Planck's constant
'h' has been measured as increasing as documented in the 1987
Report. The most stringent data from astronomy reveal 'hc' must
be a true constant [62 - 65]. Consequently, 'h' must be proportional
to '1/c' exactly. This is explicable in terms of the SED approach
since, as mentioned above, 'h' is essentially a measure of the
strength of the zero-point fields (ZPF). If the ZPE is increasing,
so, in direct proportion, must 'h'. As noted above, an increasing
ZPE also means 'c' must drop. In other words, as the energy density
of the ZPF increases, 'c' decreases in such a way that 'hc' is
invariant. A similar analysis could be made for other time-varying
'constants' that change synchronously with 'c'.

This analysis reveals some important
consequences resulting from Einstein's famous
equation [E = mc2], where 'E' is energy, and 'm' is mass.
Data listed in the Norman/Setterfield Report
confirm the analysis that 'm' is proportional to 1/c2
within a quantum interval, so that energy (E) is unaffected as
'c' varies. Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff independently verify that
when the energy density of the ZPF decreases, mass also decreases.
They confirm that 'E' in Einstein's equation remains unaffected
by these synchronous changes involving 'c' [16].

If we continue this analysis,
the behaviour of mass 'm' is found to be very closely related
to the behaviour of the Gravitational constant 'G'
and gravitational phenomena. In fact 'G' can be shown to vary
in such a way that 'Gm' remains invariant at all times. This relationship
between 'G' and 'm' is similar to the relationship between Planck's
constant and the speed of light that leaves the quantity 'hc'
unchanged. The quantity 'Gm' always occurs as a united entity
in the relevant gravitational or orbital equations [66]. Therefore,
gravitational and orbital phenomena will be unchanged by varying
light speed as will planetary periods and distances [67]. In other
words, acceleration due to gravity, weight, and planetary orbital
years, remain independent of any variation of 'c'. As a result,
astronomical orbital periods of the earth, moon, and planets form
an independent time-piece, a dynamical clock, with which it is
possible to compare atomic processes.

THE BEHAVIOUR OF ATOMIC CLOCKS

This comparison between dynamical
and atomic clocks leads to another aspect of this discussion.
Observations reveal that a higher speed of light implies that
some atomic processes are proportionally faster. This includes
atomic frequencies and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks. In
1934 'c' was experimentally determined to be varying, but measured
wavelengths of light were experimentally shown to be unchanged.
Professor Raymond T. Birge, who did not personally accept the
idea that the speed of light could vary, nevertheless stated that
the observational data left only one conclusion. He stated that
if 'c' was actually varying and wavelengths remained unchanged,
this could only mean 'the value of every atomic frequency...must
be changing' [68].

Birge was able to make this statement
because of an equation linking the wavelength 'W' of light, with
frequency 'F', and light-speed 'c'. The equation reads 'c = FW.'
If 'W' is constant and 'c' is varying, then 'F' must vary in proportion
to 'c'. Furthermore, Birge knew that the frequency of light emitted
from atoms is directly proportional to the frequency of the revolution
of atomic particles in their orbits [42]. All atomic frequencies
are therefore directly proportional to 'F', and so also directly
proportional to 'c', just as Birge indicated.

The run-rate of atomic clocks
is governed by atomic frequencies. It therefore follows that these
clocks, in all their various forms, run at a rate proportional
to c. The atomic clock is thereby c-dependent, while the orbital
or dynamical clock ticks independently at a constant rate. In
1965, Kovalevsky pointed out the converse of this. He stated that
if the two clock rates were different, 'then Planck's constant
as well as atomic frequencies would drift' [69]. This is precisely
what the observations reveal.

This has practical consequences
in the measurements of 'c'. In 1949 the frequency-dependent ammonia-quartz
clock was introduced and became standard in many scientific laboratories
[70]. But by 1967, atomic clocks had become uniformly adopted
as timekeepers around the world. Methods that use atomic clocks
to measure 'c' will always fail to detect any changes in light-speed,
since their run-rate varies directly as 'c' varies. This is evidenced
by the change in character of the 'c' data following the introduction
of these clocks. This is why the General Conference on Weights
and Measures meeting in Paris in October of 1983 declared 'c'
an absolute constant [71]. Since then, any change in the speed
of light would have to be inferred from measurements other than
those involving atomic clocks.

COMPARING ATOMIC AND DYNAMIC CLOCKS

However, this problem with frequencies
and atomic clocks can actually supply additional data to work
with. It is possible in principle to obtain evidence for speed
of light variation by comparing the run-rate of atomic clocks
with that of dynamical clocks. When this is done, a difference
in run-rate is noted. Over a number of years up to 1980, Dr. Thomas
Van Flandern of the US Naval Observatory in Washington examined
data from lunar laser ranging using atomic clocks, and compared
their data with data from dynamical, or orbital, clocks. From
this comparison of data, he concluded that 'the number of atomic
seconds in a dynamical interval is becoming fewer. Presumably,
if the result has any generality to it, this means that atomic
phenomena are slowing down with respect to dynamical phenomena'
[72]. Van Flandern has more recently been involved in setting
the parameters running the clocks in the Global Positioning System
of satellites used for navigation around the world. His clock
comparisons indicated that atomic phenomena were slowing against
the dynamical standard until about 1980. This implies that 'c'
was continuing to slow, regardless of the results obtained using
the frequency-dependent measurements of recent atomic clocks.

AN OSCILLATION IS INVOLVED

These clock comparisons are useful
in another way. The atomic dates of historical artifacts can be
approximated via radiometric dating. These dates can then be compared
with actual historical, or orbital, dates. This comparison of
clocks allows us to examine the situation prior to 1678 when the
Danish astronomer Roemer made the first measurement of the speed
of light. When this comparison is done, light-speed behaviour
is seen to include an oscillation on top of the exponential decay
pattern revealed by the redshift. This evidence seems to suggest
that the oscillation peaked somewhere around 500 AD. Furthermore,
it is of interest to note that measurements of several atomic
constants associated with 'c' also seem to indicate that the 'c'
decay curve may have bottomed out around 1980 and has started
to increase again. More data are needed before a positive statement
can be made.

Because the oscillation is small,
it only becomes apparent as the exponential curve tapers off.
As both Close [73] and D'azzo & Houpis [74] pointed out in
1966, this is typical of many physical systems. The complete response
of a system to an input of energy comprises two parts: the forced
response and the free or natural response. This can be illustrated
by a number of mechanical or electrical systems. The forced response
comes from the injection of energy into the system. The free response
is the system's own natural period of oscillation. The two together
describe the complete behaviour of the system. In this new model,
the exponential curve represents the energy injection into the
system as the initial elastic tension changed its form into the
ZPE, while the oscillation comes from the free response of the
cosmos to this energy injection. This dual process has affected
atomic behaviour and light-speed throughout the cosmos.

LIGHT-SPEED AND THE EARLY COSMOS

The issue of light-speed in the
early cosmos is one which has received some attention recently
in several peer-reviewed journals. Starting in December 1987,
the Russian physicist V. S. Troitskii from the Radiophysical Research
Institute in Gorky published a twenty-two page analysis in Astrophysics
and Space Science regarding the problems cosmologists
faced with the early universe. He looked at a possible solution
if it was accepted that light-speed continuously decreased over
the lifetime of the cosmos, and the associated atomic constants
varied synchronously. He suggested that, at the origin of the
cosmos, light may have travelled at 1010
times its current speed. He concluded that the cosmos was
static and not expanding.

In 1993, J. W. Moffat of the University
of Toronto, Canada, had two articles published in the International
Journal of Modern Physics D (see also [75]). He suggested
that there was a high value for 'c' during the earliest moments
of the formation of the cosmos, following which it rapidly dropped
to its present value. Then, in January 1999, a paper in Physical
Review D by Andreas Albrecht and Joao Magueijo, entitled
'A Time Varying Speed Of Light As A Solution To Cosmological
Puzzles' received a great deal of attention. These authors
demonstrated that a number of serious problems facing cosmologists
could be solved by a very high initial speed of light.

Like Moffat before them, Albrecht
and Magueijo isolated their high initial light-speed and its proposed
dramatic drop to the current speed to a very limited time during
the formation of the cosmos. However, in the same issue of Physical
Review D there appeared a paper by John D. Barrow, Professor
of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He took
this concept one step further by proposing that the speed of light
has dropped from the value proposed by Albrecht and Magueijo down
to its current value over the lifetime of the universe.

An article in New Scientist
for July 24, 1999, summarised these proposals in the first sentence.
'Call it heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will
simply melt away, if you break one rule, says John D. Barrow 
the rule that says the speed of light never varies.' Interestingly,
the initial speed of light proposed by Albrecht, Magueijo and
Barrow is 1060 times its current speed. In contrast,
the redshift data give a far less dramatic result. The most distant
object seen in the Hubble Space Telescope has a redshift, 'z',
of 14. This indicates light-speed was about 9 x 108
greater than now. At the origin of the cosmos this rises to about
2.5 x 1010 times the current value of c, more in
line with Troitskii's proposal, and considerably more conservative
than the Barrow, Albrecht and Magueijo estimate. This lower, more
conservative estimate is also in line with the 1987 Norman-Setterfield
Report.

IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSED MODEL

(1). Energy output from distant astronomical
sources

Distant quasars [76] and gamma
ray bursts [77] have an intense stream of redshifted photons coming
from them. However, similar objects which are known to be closer,
do not have the same energy output. There is a phenomena that
seems to be related to distance resulting in a dilemma regarding
the energy source for both types of objects.

It is normally assumed that redshifted
photons outside our galaxy were emitted with the same energy as
un-shifted photons within our galaxy. However we know that redshifted
photons have lower energy. This model accepts that these photons
had a lower intrinsic energy at emission. It can be shown that
the energy output by stars will remain approximately the same
at all quantum jumps. Therefore stars must have emitted more lower
energy photons per unit of volume in times past, thus preserving
the approximate total energy output.

This explains why we see the much
more intense streams of redshifted photons from distant astronomical
objects as compared with similar nearby objects: in order to maintain
the total energy output, more lower energy photons were emitted
earlier.

(2). Quantum 'shells'

This model assumes each quantum
change occurs instantaneously throughout the cosmos. Yet a finite
time is taken for light emitted by atomic processes to reach the
observer. Consequently, the observed redshift will appear to be
quantised in spherical shells centred about any observer anywhere
in the universe. The distance between shell boundaries will be
constant because of the unique behaviour which is described by
equations derived from the observational data. This distance between
shell boundaries is about 138,000 light years and marks the distance
between successive redshift jumps of 2.73 km/s. All objects that
emit light within that shell will have the same redshift.

(3). 'Missing mass' in galaxy clusters

The relative velocities of individual
galaxies within clusters of galaxies are measured by their redshift.
From this redshift measurement, it has been concluded that the
velocities of galaxies are too high for them to remain within
the cluster for the assumed age of the universe. Therefore astronomers
have been looking for the 'missing mass' needed to hold such clusters
together by way of gravitational forces. However, if the redshift
does not represent velocity, as is currently accepted, then the
problem disappears. As actual relative velocities of galaxies
will be small, no mass is 'missing.' (Note that this does not
solve the problem of the 'missing mass' within spiral galaxies
which is a separate issue.)

(4). A uniform microwave background

An initial very high value for
light-speed means that the radiation in the very early moments
of the cosmos would be rapidly homogenised by scattering processes.
This means that the radiation we observe from that time will be
both uniform and smooth. This is largely what is observed with
the microwave background radiation coming from all parts of the
sky [78]. This model therefore provides an answer to its smoothness
without the necessity of secondary assumptions about matter distribution
and galaxy formation that tend to be a problem for current theories.

(5). Corrections to the atomic clock

As a consequence of knowing how
light-speed and atomic clocks have behaved from the redshift,
atomic and radiometric clocks can now be corrected to read actual
orbital time. As a result, geological eras can have a new orbital
time-scale set beside them. This will necessitate a re-orientation
in our current thinking on such matters.

(6). Final note

The effects of changing the vacuum
energy density uniformly throughout the cosmos have been considered
in this presentation. This in no way precludes the possibility
that the vacuum energy density may vary on a local astronomical
scale, perhaps due to energetic processes. In such cases, dramatically
divergent redshifts may be expected when two neighbouring astronomical
objects are compared. Arp has listed off a number of potential
instances where this explanation may be valid [79, 80].

SUMMARY

This model proposes that an initial
small, hot, dense, highly energetic universe underwent rapid expansion
to its current size, and remained static thereafter. The vacuum
potential energy in the form of an elasticity, tension, or stress,
acquired from the initial expansion, became converted exponentially
into the vacuum zero-point radiation. This had two results. First,
there was a progressive decline in light-speed. Concurrently,
atomic particle and orbital energies throughout the cosmos underwent
a series of quantum increases, as more energy became available
to them from the vacuum. Therefore, with increasing time, atoms
emitted light that shifted in jumps towards the more energetic
blue end of the spectrum. As a result, as we look back in time
to progressively more distant astronomical objects, we see that
process in reverse. That is to say the light of these galaxies
is shifted in jumps towards the red end of the spectrum. The implications
of this model solve some astronomical problems but, at the same
time, challenge some current historical interpretations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

My heartfelt thanks goes to Helen
Fryman for the many hours she spent in order to make this paper
readable for a wide audience. A debt of gratitude is owed to Dr.
Michael Webb, Dr. Bernard Brandstater, and Lambert Dolphin for
their many helpful discussions and sound advice. Finally, I must
also acknowledge the pungent remarks of 'Lucas,' which resulted
in some significant improvements to this paper.

[61]. Alan Montgomery, 'A determination
and analysis of the appropriate values ofthe speed of light to test the Setterfield
hypothesis', Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Creationism, pp.
369-386, Creation ScienceFellowship
Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1994.